One thing I've never seen reported is if she can go back to Texas without facing potential trial. The article doesn't say.
I think everyone's watching to see if Paxton acts on it. Probably not her, but anyone who assisted her in any sense.
At this point, now that her abortion is secured, I perversely want Paxton to turn this into the biggest clown show possible. It does stand to reason that if he went to the trouble to get the first ruling overturned, it'd be seen as capitulating not to see this through to the end.
Musk said he was going to sue everyone who ever donated to Media Matters. Maybe Paxton will sue every contributor to whatever organization helped arrange her travel and procedure.
That means I need to make a donation to Media Matters. I was saving for a new tent.
Anyway, the "let anyone sue anyone" is really a good way to drive home the "war" part of "culture war."
What could Paxton do to her, or to people who assisted her? At this point doesn't it become an interstate and hence federal thing?
It's only interstate commerce if she stopped to buy a soda while driving to another state.
7: Is the "crime" of leaving the state to secure an abortion such that he could keep going after her for it? If so, she could be intimidated from returning home. Or worst case, current law is that a governor can't refuse an interstate extradition on policy grounds.
It's only interstate champagne if she drove to france.
I don't think the point is that she's clearly going to be jailed by Texas. It's that she's clearly going to be facing tremendous legal costs, plus the civil suits.
I would strive not to underestimate petty cruelty in Paxton.
That seems risky, though. Somebody's going to pick it up pro bono, and if it does get appealed to a federal court that'd risk the law being repealed. But yes, even having to go through the process--on top of the emotional weight of a failed pregnancy in the first place--is going to be hell for her.
I don't think they go after her, and I don't think it goes to federal court. I'm guessing the abetting happens within Texas.
and if it does get appealed to a federal court that'd risk the law being repealed
With the current SCOTUS, that seems like barely a risk to them? Maybe there would be some more clarity in the law mandated, maybe that would let a handful of abortions through even in Texas - movementers have been trying to "compromise" on 15 weeks - but the broad principle would remain. Also could just end up with a clear-and-ridiculous standard like "only if death is deemed 100% likely within 72 hours."
||
I saw a girl with a fuzzy brown backpack, and the backpack was a bear, but it was also a chocolate-chip cookie. A bearcookie! I am inordinately pleased.
|>
A civil suit against her isn't going to be removable, I don't think. It depends on whether the Texas statute is completely preempted, and I don't think that would fly in either the district courts there or the Fifth Circuit. So the only way it gets to federal court is cert to the USSC from the highest court in Texas, so she'd need 4 votes 2 or 3 years from now, having played the string all the way out in the Texas court system.
The USSC may end up taking the Idaho case, and offering some gloss on when abortions count as emergencies. I think there was a bad panel opinion in the Ninth Circuit, but haven't checked back in. I hear that Idaho wants USSC involvement, but I'm not sure if there's an intervening en banc process under way.
14/15/16: Thanks, I meant specifically about any provisions regarding preventing interstate travel for abortions. I realize I'm unclear whether Texas's law has any language like that. (I know Idaho does--thank you for going into that, Charlie). Of course they can do a lot of evil even without that, and will.
I meant 14-15,17. Bearcookies can do no evil.
21: I was just going to ask in which thread we were nm to him. What an actor, and to lose him so young. Genuinely bummed.
Seconding 23; it's surprising and very sad news.
24: Black men die young. Shocking, but not surprising.
I read the Texas Supreme Court opinion and while the whole thing is maddening, it looked to me like the problem was that the doctor didn't say the magic words. Is it because the situation wasn't as precarious as we all think it is? Was the doc being overly cautious?
Did I misunderstand the thing?
I have not parsed through it, but I thought the magic words the doctor didn't say were "reasoned medical judgment" rather than "opinion". Which is demented hairsplitting from the court, if I have that straight -- believing that a doctor meant something meaningfully different by saying "in my opinion, this patient's health is at risk" as opposed to "in my reasoned medical judgment, this patient's health is at risk" is nonsense. Particularly given that there was no prior guidance as to what the magic words were, and no opportunity to conform to them once they were announced.
It's "reasonable medical judgment" as the magic words, and what the doctor said was "good-faith belief". Op. At 5. That is nonsensical hairsplitting, which depends on the doctor not having known the correct formula to utter. Because the court made it up after the fact.
Also, not as precarious as we all thought it was isa really ambiguous thing to say. A medical situation where there is, e.g., a 1/100 chance you're going to die in the next few weeks is a hair on fire emergency from a modern medicine point of view. But you are probably going to survive. How much risk exactly the TX court is expecting pregnant women to assume is going to be kept ambiguous as much as possible, I expect.
They were all in love with dying. They were doing it in Texas.
The road goes on to other states, or else the pregnancies never end.
I don't mind the sun sometimes, the images it shows.
But I prefer Telperion, and Laurelin in gold.
||
Reading my duck hunting articles from 10 years ago and before are like reading old letters from a love gone sour.|>
Once you go quack, you never go back.
Totally agree, LB, that the Texas Supreme Court is acting in bad faith. It's their middle name. But henceforth docs should still make sure they utter all the magic words.
Oh, sure. But this doc didn't screw up anything -- the magic words hadn't been revealed yet. And the next doc who says "reasonable medical judgment" will mysteriously have fucked something else up.
I want to note that the hairsplitting here is even more nonsensical than represented above. The doctors actual words were that it was her, "good faith belief and medical recommendation that the Emergent Medical Condition Exception to Texas's abortion bans and laws permits an abortion in Ms. Cox's circumstances." I can see the argument that the "good faith belief" of a doctor is not exactly the same as a "reasonable medical judgment". For example, a doctor may have a good faith belief that Donald Trump won the 2020 election. But a ""good faith belief and medical recommendation" necessarily implies the use of "reasonable medical judgment" (and the letter then goes on to list the medical factors considered in making the judgment). I mean, come the eff on.
Nor were any of those magic words in the statute, fwict!
(a) Sections 171.203 and 171.204 do not apply if a physician believes a medical emergency exists that prevents compliance with this subchapter.
(b) A physician who performs or induces an abortion under circumstances described by Subsection (a) shall make written notations in the pregnant woman 's medical record of:
(1) the physician 's belief that a medical emergency necessitated the abortion; and
(2) the medical condition of the pregnant woman that prevented compliance with this subchapter.
(c) A physician performing or inducing an abortion under this section shall maintain in the physician 's practice records a copy of the notations made under Subsection (b).